AndyH

Wow. Opposite answer. Must have been Dick W Thanks!

Exactly on point. Terrific. Thank you!

Sorry, I should have been clearer. The plan is designed for the Key employees, and the exclusions are designed to minimize employee costs. Think of it as a law firm trying to exclude currently eligible associates.

Why do you think the first one is an option (unless you have the industry statistical backup)? You are aware of the 5/22/07 regulation and subsequent notices, right?

Can a plan sponsor of a top heavy plan amend the plan effective in a later year to exclude certain job classifications (non-union) and avoid future top heavy accruals for such "excluded" people? Assume they had accrued benefits that had not been distributed (or account balances in a DC plan). We have differing opinions and cannot find this addressed. I say no. Anybody disagree?

411(d)(2)© seems to say that interest up to the determination date uses 120% of the Federal mid-term rate and future interest would be at the 417 rate but future interest is not applicable to this calculation, right?

Option A would be the only way to go unless you can justify the pre-62 NRA. But you would not want to general test such a plan because the MVAR would be through the roof. And, you still must justify the retirement assumption.

Thank you. Any others willing to discuss their views or communications on this, or communications they have seen?

How are practicioners communicating and interpreting the new PPA requirement that plan sponsors post "actuarial information" from Form 5500 on company intranet sites? There is very little guidance. What due date are firms communicating? Are you telling your clients to include Schedule SB attachments? Anybody defining what an intranet is for this purpose? What are the big firms communicating?

Ok, that I agree with. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm late to this party, but I am puzzled by this thread. Are Blinky and David saying, for example, that a plan that has a NRA lower than 62 (without the industry justification) but has no in-service distribution provision need not take any action? Or am I reading too much into the replies?

Welcome. For an HCE in a small plan, the threshold is that the plan must be funded at 110% after the distribution, not 80% before. These are two different sets of rules. There are theoretically bonding and letter of credit exceptions to get around the 110% restrictions, but these options are not easy to satisfy, and in most cases not worth considering. I'm not aware of any partial payment opportunity such as you reference with regards to the 110% rule. There is a 50% option that may apply with 80% rule, but that is not an option to an HCE in a plan that is funded below 110%.

Could the gameplan be to convert it to a 412(i) at that point, or buy an annuity at a 1% discount rate?

calling Ned Ryerson

Agree. Why are we suddently getting all these DC questions in this forum? Must be the entertaining personalities.

defined contribution plan Profit sharing contributions must be "substantial and recurring" but if they aren't I think you merely have a vesting issue - partial termination. So i don't know of any required timeframe to terminate or activate. Anybody disagree?

DB plan?

Thanks. It was the debt financing issue I was remembering. It's been many years fortunately since I worked with plans invested exclusively in real estate (co-owned by the Trustee personally), classic automobiles (driven by the Trustee) , or paintings (on the wall in the office of the Trustee).

Doesn't the rental income generate unrelated business income subject to tax? How does that work with an IRA?

Mike, why are you reluctant to cut back the allocations prospectively? Not sure what you mean by "after the fact". But in a future year, or a year in which the accrual is not protected (e.g. < a year of service) I don't see an issue if such cnanges are not frequent. But in general there are lots of bombs that will go off in the next few years based on some proposals I've seen. I think the 412(i) crowd is on this bandwagon now.

Not incorrect.

So 404(a)(7) would apply (above 6% DC right)? There seems to be a vast vacuum on that question. Also, about the exclusive plan rule that apparently relates to model SEPS? Is there a "safe" non-model SEP that could be used to co-exist with a DB plan? So, Gary, why the "ignore the DB plan" reply? That seems to overlook a number of issues.

How about a report on the new facility Mike?

Why might they not be covered?

Thank you. That looks great.